Skip to main content

The Business Judgment Rule & Sexual Harassment Claims


Sharp v. Best Buy - United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky, Bowling Green Division


Facts:  Robert Sharp ("Sharp") was employed by Best Buy as an auto technician.  Since Sharp was diagnosed as having narcolepsy and cataplexy, Best Buy accommodated his conditions by excusing him from shift work.  However, complaints were made against Sharp that he made several sexually harassing comments toward a co-worker.  The co-worker subsequently reported this conduct to Best Buy's Human Resources Hotline.  

After Best Buy investigated the sexual harassment complaints, Sharp was fired.  Sharp then responded by suing Best Buy for disability discrimination and retaliation.  Best Buy moved for summary judgment on Sharp's claims.

Holding:  The District Court granted Best Buy's motion for summary judgment based upon the fact that the "business judgment rule" provided that the Court would not second guess Best Buy's personnel decision so long as it was supported by an honest belief of a non-discriminatory reason for the employment action.  Even though attempts were made to accommodate Sharp's disability, the Court held that his disability was not the reason for his termination.  In this instance, Best Buy had a non-discriminatory reason for firing Sharp as his complained of conduct violated a zero-tolerance sexual harassment policy. 

As well, the Court acknowledged that while Sharp claimed that the co-worker fabricated her sexual harassment complaints, this suspicion was insufficient to defeat the business judgment rule. 

Judgment:  The District Court granted Best Buy's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the "business judgment rule" allowed Best Buy to make personnel decisions, and not have the Court second guess those actions, as Best Buy's decision to fire Sharp was based upon an honest belief of a non-discriminatory reason. 

The Takeaway:  Employers should note that the business judgment rule is not a get out of jail card in all situations!  Instead, the rule allows employers to make personnel decisions based upon an objection and thorough investigation.  The employer only needs to show that it had an honest, well founded belief to support its employment actions.  If an employer can do that, under the business judgment rule, the court will not substitute its judgment for that of management. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Stivers

Date:  April 13, 2015

Opinion:  http://leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150414913/SHARP%20v.%20BEST%20BUY%20CO.,%20INC.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more